dita — archive

Re: [dita] Keywords in DITA

From: Dana Spradley
To: [email protected]
Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2005 18:13:00 -0000

 MHonArc v2.5.0b2 -->


















dita message






[Date Prev]
 | [Thread Prev]
 | [Thread Next]
 | [Date Next]

--

[Date Index]
 | [Thread Index]
 | [List Home]








Subject: Re: [dita] Keywords in DITA




From: Dana Spradley <[email protected]>
To: Dana Spradley <[email protected]>
Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2005 10:05:11 -0800










erratum: "otherwise you're sending mixed
messages..."


In fact, it seems to me this whole discussion was provoked by a bad
definition for <keyword> in the language spec, which defined it
as a keyword in the technical programming sense, while from the
<keywords> definition you would have expected it to be defined as
in DocBook.


We could solve the entire issue by just revising that <keyword>
definition to be what <keywords> expects.


If people feel there is a need for keywords in the technical sense to
migrate beyond the confines of syntax diagrams, then that's a separate
issue for the folks working on the Programming Domain vis-a-vis the
<kwd> element - which *is* defined as a keyword in the technical
programming sense.


--Dana



Dana Spradley wrote:


  
  
  I agree on the DocBook part, but disagree on the <keyword>
in other contexts is more like a word from an API or language clause.


The <kwd> element exists for that.


<keyword> outside <keywords> should have the same meaning
it does within - outwise you're sending mixed messages to authors, and
mixing up the use.

  

JoAnn Hackos wrote:

  
    
    

    
    Sounds like a good solution.
     
    JoAnn
    
    JoAnn T. Hackos, PhD
President
Comtech Services, Inc.
710 Kipling Street, Suite 400
Denver, CO 80215
303-232-7586
[email protected]
http://www.comtech-serv.com 
     


    
From: Rob
Frankland [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, March 14, 2005 9:29 AM
To: 'Paul Prescod'; JoAnn Hackos; 'Don Day'
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: RE: [dita] Keywords in DITA


    
    I agree,
having followed this thread. Your suggested solution covers both use
cases. I believe the largest number of users will want the HTML/Docbook
usage and this enables the programmer writers to meet their needs as
well.
    
    Rob
    
    
    
    
    From: Paul Prescod
[mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Tuesday, March
08, 2005 5:46 PM
To: JoAnn Hackos;
Don
Day
Cc:
    [email protected]
Subject: RE: [dita]
Keywords in DITA
    
    
    
    Okay, an
emerging consensus seems to be that <keyword> in <keywords>
means <keyword> in the HTML/Docbook sense.
    
    
    http://www.docbook.org/tdg/en/html/keyword.html .
It is typically hidden from the user as metadata and embedded in the
HTML meta tag.
    
    
     
    
    
    <keyword>
in other contexts is more like a word from an API or language.
    
    
     
    
    
    Should we
just document it that way? If so, I can suggest some wordings.
    
    
     
    
    
     Paul Prescod
    
    
     
    
    
  








Follow-Ups:

Re: [dita] Keywords in DITA
From: Erik Hennum <[email protected]>



References:

RE: [dita] Keywords in DITA
From: "JoAnn Hackos" <[email protected]>
Re: [dita] Keywords in DITA
From: Dana Spradley <[email protected]>






[Date Prev]
 | [Thread Prev]
 | [Thread Next]
 | [Date Next]

--

[Date Index]
 | [Thread Index]
 | [List Home]